Response to plerdsus:

Completely wrong on eveything... and just as predicted.

The age of something is it's age.
A constitution is a constitution.

Perhaps you should ring up the consulates of these countries. Perhaps they will agree to revise their national histories so that you can avoid being accountable here.

The qualification on Denmark is very offensive. Was it a "token occupation" because hundreds died instead of thousands?

People like David Flint have invented silly statistics to support their ideas on the monarchy, which primarily rest on how the horrors of World War II fell unevenly upon various nations. Revolting stuff

Her Maj. has been 'our' Queen for 54[?] years. In that time she has been respected and hard working. No one can really make a valid criticism about her.
In 54 years how many Presidents have come and gone? Are any of them remembered as excellent? Hard working? Missed?
They are just a bunch of forgotten pollies now. Yet the Queen soldiers on at nearly eighty. Gotta respect that.

David Latimer,

I agree with almost every opinion you have. Please kep posting, we can really use someone here, who not only has an opinion, but who can also articulate it so beautifully.

Steel,
Could you define what you mean by mature? How will we individually become different when this change occurrs. How will standing on our own improve Australia?

From many of the republicans posting here I note the emotive immaturity of their language and would dispair if they were to write a constution for us all to live in agreement under.

Ludwig,
I feel your attitudes reflect sour grapes just because your first preferred Candidate did not become elected.

You control your vote not any Party - wake up and vote how you prefer. However unless your vote is extended to the last Candidate of your preference your vote is exausted early and you have no further say. Minor Parties are better served by preference distribution as demonstrated in my earlier example. Killing your vote early denies you any further say.

Philo

Many times I have mentioned this on OLO and this is the first time anyone has shown anything but full agreement.

You can presumably see that with the compulsory preferential system your vote can end up counting where you really don’t want it to count. Well then we need go no further. How can you say “You control your vote not any Party “? You simply CANNOT have a situation like that in a true democracy.

If you particularly wish not to vote for one of the big parties and you vote for example; Democrats, Greens, independent, independent, Liberal, Labor, your preferences will in all probability filter down to the bottom, and end up counting for liberal. In this case, it ends up counting where you specifically don’t want it to.

What this means is that you cannot vote for a minor party or an independent without your vote being hijacked, unless in the very small minority of instances, one of those candidates is actually the front-runner or second-placed vote-scorer.

In compulsory preferential voting, you DON’T have full control of your vote. In optional preferential voting, you do. In the latter system, you have the option of exhausting your vote for one candidate or declaring preferences as far down the ticket as you wish. Now that’s democratic! It has been operating in some state elections for a long time. It is tried and proven. Why on earth would we have a system that compels voters to mark every square? (Because it helps keep the two-party system entrenched and keeps those ‘ratbag’ elements suppressed)

Minor parties are most definitely NOT served by preference distribution that goes in the vast majority of cases to the major parties, and which cannot go to the minor parties without also scoring for the major parties, in most cases.

Ludwig,
I'm not sure which State you live in; but NSW has optional preferential voting, and the large parties holding seats publicise: "JUST Vote 1". This way is first past the post and the major Parties will knock out the distribution of their preferences to smaller Parties.

http://abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/results/lccount.htm

One Nation 5817 0.8 0.1 -1.0
Family First Party 36644 4.9 0.6 +0.9
Labor Party 271757 36.6 4.4 +3.7
Liberal Party 189124 25.5 3.1 -14.6
National Party 5222 0.7 0.1 +0.2
Shooters party 4573 0.6 0.1 +0.6
Australian Greens 30326 4.1 0.5 +1.3
Nick Xenophon's No Pokies 159104 21.4 2.6 +20.2


In the SA elections the 'No Pokies - Nick Xenophon's independent' will hold the balance of power. It is obvious people are looking for alternatives.